Navigate:

Text Size

-

+

reset

If Stephen Colbert keeps hyping his presidential bid on his nightly half-hour news parody show, he could get himself and his network in trouble for violating election laws.
AP Photo

His best defense, though, according to an election lawyer who requested anonymity because he did not want to risk incurring Colbert’s wrath, would be admitting that his “campaign” is for entertainment only and that he’s not spending money to influence an election — the trigger for federal campaign laws.

If he fesses up to that, the lawyer said, he could argue that any effort to limit his spending on his candidacy would violate “his rights of expression as a satirist.”

Even if he collects the signatures, Democrats probably won’t allow Colbert on their ballot, if he’s also on the GOP ballot, Werner told Politico.

And state GOP chairman Katon Dawson said that if Colbert makes a serious effort to get on the ballot, he may be biting off more than he realizes.

“This has probably been done in jest,” he said. “But running for president of the United States is not something that you can really have a lot of fun with, because of the federal election laws that are involved,” he added, pointing out that many violations carry criminal penalties.

“If it becomes a serious [effort] to be on the ballot, then someone better read the laws,” he said.

The costs of producing and airing Colbert’s show this week, dedicated largely to hyping his candidacy, could be construed as so-called “in-kind” contributions from Comedy Central, Dawson suggested.

It’s illegal for corporations to contribute money, labor or anything of value to federal candidates, thanks to a century-old provision intended to prevent corporate fat cats from bankrolling candidates.

To be sure, other candidates have appeared on television shows — late night, comedy and otherwise — to announce or boost their candidacies (think Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on NBC’s “Tonight Show” Wednesday).

But that doesn’t count as a corporate contribution because the shows, their networks and corporate parents aren’t run by a political party or a candidate and are, partly as a result, exempt from many campaign finance rules.

“It’s a different kettle of fish when you have the media entity — or the program — controlled by a candidate,” said Elias, the election lawyer. “So, to the extent that you had a bona fide candidate who was controlling the show, you would certainly be blazing new ground and you would be raising an issue about whether there was an FEC problem.”

If Comedy Central employees worked on behalf of a Colbert campaign, that could pose a similar issue.

A lawyer at Wiley Rein said the firm's client was Comedy Central, not Colbert's "campaign," and referred questions to the network about whether the firm's fees would count toward any Colbert campaign.

A South Carolina lawyer who helped facilitate Colbert’s effort but did not want to be identified would not say who he was working for. And he bristled when asked how his fees would be reported by a potential Colbert campaign.

“You seem to belong to that large group of people who can’t take a [expletive] joke,” he told a Politico reporter.

Joke or not, if Colbert raises or spends more than $5,000 toward his campaign, he’ll have 15 days to form a campaign committee and file a statement of candidacy with the FEC.

running for president of the United States is not something that you can really have a lot of fun with because of the federal election laws that are involved,” he added, pointing out that many violations carry criminal penalties.

In June, by liquidating a blind trust, the Clintons sought to distance themselves from any financial entanglements that might embarrass the campaign. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson argued that the couple had gone "above and beyond" what was legally required "in order to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest." But throughout their political careers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have repeatedly associated with people whose objectives seemed a million miles from "a place called Hope." Among these Alan Quasha and his menagerie–including Saudi frontmen, a foreign dictator, figures with intelligence ties and a maze of companies and offshore funds–stand out.

"That Hillary Clinton's campaign is involved with this particular cast of characters should give people pause," says John Moscow, a former Manhattan prosecutor. In the late 1980s and early '90s he led the investigation of the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) global financial empire–a bank whose prominent shareholders included members of the Harken board. "Too many of the same names from earlier troubling circumstances suggests a lack of control over who she is dealing with," says Moscow, "or a policy of dealing with anyone who can pay."

Those aren't the only hurdles. As an announced candidate, the network would be required to give "equal time" to other candidates. That means the Comedy Channel would turn into an "all-day, all-night" political advertizement channel. Candidates could run ads for free for a half-hour per day (plus arny reruns of Colbert's show). There are nearly sufficient candidates to cover the entire programming schedule.

This is a take-off of another similar "running joke" on the Smother's Brothers Show in the 1960's where Pat Paulson ran a campaign and actually received votes. No one raised the legal issues that would be raised today, simply because the laws have changed, and the situation/climate is much different.

This is headed for a bad end unless the "joke" stops soon.

On the other hand, if he is serious, then good luck to him. Be prepared to give up his show; at least until the campaigning is over.

Colbert is free to mock anything, including the system, as long as he doesn't break any laws in the process. If he does break election laws, the negative results he may suffer would be as funny as anything he spouts on TV. As humorous as Colbert is at times, brilliance is often lacking. His shtick relies on reaffirming the stereotypes held by his fans, not exactly unplowed territory in comedy.

Bluecollarbytes - BS. Colbert's schtick is based on parodying elements of a philosophy in the most effective way possible, by arguing FOR it and in doing so revealing the ridiculous nature of the argument. He's been doing this for years, and there's still not a neocon out there who can win a debate with him; they can only sit there dumbfounded as this person who touts their beliefs fervently simultaneously reveals those beliefs as inconsistent and foolish. He slays you with your own sword.

Colbert's schtick is based on parodying elements of a philosophy in the most effective way possible, by arguing FOR it and in doing so revealing the ridiculous nature of the argument. He's been doing this for years, and there's still not a neocon out there who can win a debate with him; they can only sit there dumbfounded as this person who touts their beliefs fervently simultaneously reveals those beliefs as inconsistent and foolish. He slays you with your own sword.

You have a point (I think). Still, he is not half as witty nor as quick as Ann Coulter. She would rip Colbert a new one in a debate, just as she does when arguing any leftie.

I know they did not used to apply. I believe that this changed in the McCain-Feingold law and in recent court decisions. Considerable regulations and restrictions were placed on all advertizing and on appearances regardless if it was on cable or on broadcast network.